SPQR

In the Jane's AFV Recognition Handbook (1992), they estimate the M88 ARV's maximum armour to 20mm (steel). I'll scan you its 2 pages this afternoon

They were no US Army's M60A3 equiped with ERA in operation, and only late during the first Gulf War in 1991-1992 ERA was used by USMC's M60A1 (RISE/PASSIVE), before they receive Abrams MBT. The US Army was to have fielded an ERA package for its M60A3, but although production did start and quantities were produced, it was decided not to field the system. It was during Operation Desert Storm that the USMC fitted their M60A1 with the ERA package. The ERA package is composed of 91 armor tiles (49 M1 tiles and 42 M2 tiles). Some of the RISE/PASSIVE Enhancement are : - Full stabilization in both traverse and elevation of the main armament - AVDS-1790-2C RISE (Reliability Improved Selected Equipment) engine fitted The USMC's M60A1 had also received British-style six-barrelled smoke dischargers fitted to either side of the turret.

So you did  Instead of you, I passed more than an hour to synthesize for you in spite of our mutual antipathy data about 1985's AFVs and models to be chosen for a visually realistic mod respecting the year of 1985 and the Cold War Crisis era. It would have been your right to critisize me for my last conclusion, but I never deserved to be treated like you had treated me before editing it in a calmly way 10 minutes later.

...

I was just asking, as you always change some units nearly everyday. Â your humour is bad taste, especially when your arguments decrease, the single exit which remains to leave your bad situation is to make fun...

Do I have to reload everythings in bulk ?

Here are more details about this attack on a M1A2 SEP from the 4th I.D. : Source Others pics On another source I read that it happened in November 2003, around Bagdad. The turret had been blown off and the four crew died. Another incident ? --------------------------------- Others huge pics of Abrams in Iraq

Very strange

...

Is it worse than hiding his own lack of research, focusing on a single tank, hoping that this only point will hide the others lacks ? Moreover, captured T-80 and T-72 are only available with Resistance (year before CWC) and T-80U or even T-72B ever existed then... I couldn't never have imagined in my hottest dreams more funnier than that and "respecting the year of 1985" I gonna die if you continue

I couldn't have said it better

If you didn't fear to get closer, far more or less ... The first M84s were built... in late 1984 Iraqi T-72M has also a different... color Thus, it's BIS fault I would like very much a USS Entreprise as a plane for West, with troops wearing pyjamas... After all, "Star Trek The Motion Picture" went on screen in 1979, near 1985

When one pretends something, we've got the right to received what was intended to be given. Read-Me It's not because BIS twisted reality in order to balance the game (Reality wasn't their priority), that other can twist reality while claiming on the other hand "The objectif of this mod is to replace BIS units in all sides by the best addons respecting the year of 1985 ". And, better visual quality adapted tanks ARE available : T-80 Tank Pack by Sigma-6 for the T-80BV. Tank Pack by Sigma-6 for the T-72M1 (i.e. soviet T-72A, as described by BIS in its manual).

I do absolutly agree with DigitalCenturion. Your choices are for most of them wrong and only shows historical amateurism (nothing to say about technical skills, the job done is really huge and speaks by itself). Your mod's goal is to replace BIS' Cold War Crisis units by new high quality models (among the best in my opinion) and scripts. Cold War Crisis is happening in 1985, and resistance a few years before. CWC1985 lasts from May, the 8th to July, the 10th. The first mission with M1A1 tanks happens June the 9th. In OFP's manual, soviet tanks are described as the T-80BV and the T-72M1. There's no constraint. I don't know if you used some units you claimed to use (M1A2, M2A2,...), but here is a lesson not to be forgotten : => As few data is available about the T-80UE, here are some about the T-80U, a more common model : - The first T-80U tanks were built in 1987. - The first time, the T-80U was officially seen by NATO was in 1989. That's why the T-80U was called by NATO through STANAG designation SMT M-1989. - No T-80U, and more important, no T-80UE in 1985 => The T-72B with ERA (truly available in Sigma pack), oldly called T-72M2 in Western Europ : - the first T-72B (old type) were built in 1985. - The ERA type, nowadays the T-72BV, was first identified by NATO as the SMT M-1988 , in... 1988. US Army sometimes called it FST-1 or Future Soviet Tank. - So NATO had never seen a T-72BV before... 1988. => About Abrams : - The first M1A1 units went out of production line in August 1985, thus a month after the Cold War Crisis. I'll add thaht their crew wouldn't be able to use this tanks immediatly without serious training course. - The M1A1 HA Abrams (Heavy Armor, using Depleted Uranium to strenghten the frontal turret armor against the new soviet KE rounds ) appeared in 1991. - The first batch (62 tanks) of M1A2 Abrams (from whom 19 were prototypes) appeared in 1992. - The second batch of M1A2 was only available in 1999. - Thus, in 1985, during Cold War Crisis, without M1A1 able to be on the islands, US Army would only use M60A3 Patton and M1IP Abrams (Improved Production. One of the improvement is the strenghtening of the frontal turret armor, but without Depleted Uranium), armed with the M68 L7 105 mm gun (the same as the M60A3). => M2/M3 Bradleys : - Production of A2 models started in May 1988, and first units were available in October 1988. The first batch was still having the 500 HP engine. - The second batch started in May 1989, and among many improvements the replacement of its 500 HP engine by a 600 HP one. - So, no A2 model in 1985. => M113A3 APC : - M113A3 production commenced in early 1987, and US Army started receiving theses vehicles in the summer of 1987. - Only M113A2 and M113A1 (10,260 A1 General Purpose, 874 A2 GP & 1048 A3 GP models available in the US Army in March 1989) are available in 1985 for CWC. I don't need any thanks, help yourself. But if you want to make a realistic mod, you'd better find a nice boy able to give you reliable data.

Maybe I was a bit confusing... - first pic : T-72B w/ ERA - second pic : T-80U - wheels (close nbers 3&4) - smoke launchers on turret front - Kontakt-5 front turret armor - 1st half uparmored skirt - rear boxy exhaust

Definitively a T-72B with first type ERA, with Dolly Parton turret armor, and not T-90 (new generation Kontakt-5 ERA, Shtora,...). In the second pic, we can obviously see the boxy engine exhaust at the rear hull, and with difficulty the front turret armor and the "flaps" protecting the lower turret part. But I don't manage to see the smoke launchers...

T-80U family, I would tell...

My "CE/HEAT indirect damage/range formuleas " are empirical. As a matter of fact, antipersonnel effects and range form HEAT rounds are rather harder, if not impossible, to find. I just know some real facts : - HEAT rounds act as dart, though directed explosion/propulsion of a metallic plate. Truly, the effects are rather similar as those from AP rounds. Both ammo is being "eaten" by the armor while going through. - Except Multipurpose rounds, the HEAT round have thus a low effective antipersonnel effect (few fragments, reduced shockwave), and surely not an antivehicle effect as OFP's Sabot & HEAT rounds. So, HEAT rounds should have : - an adapted antipersonnel capacity (just enough to kill or injury infantry) : low indirect damage - a reduced antipersonnel range, thus low indirect damage range Here are some pics from a tank gunnery manual, showing visual aspects of different shells impacts : APFSDS HEAT (not MP in this case) HE About AI and shell using, I've always the feeling that they fired the first shell available, even firing at infantry which is a bit effective, as even OFP's Sabots have interesting indirect damage and range values. So it seems that a shell is just a shell, whatever its purpose. My opinion about armorstructural : - about soft skinned vehicles, I wonder if we shouldn't keep the old value, or maybe the vehicle could explose far before its crew (4-6 5.56mm and Baoum !!). Otherwise on the side, maybe if we lower its armorstructural value, we should increase its armor value ? - armorstructural value could be modified through different equipments inside the tanks (thus requiring a lot of research, bu with all the brains in this forum,I don't think it'll be impossible ) => => antispalling liner => ammunition protection : None, Partial, Full => antifire systems : None, Manual, Automatic, Automatic Halon (for crewbay and/or engine) => engine type : Petrol (for old tanks), Diesel, Gas Turbine (Vulnerability level unknown) => turret power control : manual, hydraulic (hydraulic fluids are highly flammable), electro-hydraullic, electric Others modifiers : - Rate of fire : Should we take into account static or moving ? I fear that reloading manually a cannon with a heavy round at full speed off-road isn't so easy and lower the theorical spped of loading... => => Manual loader => Manual loader with two-pieces ammunition => Loading support (I thought about the Merkava, but maybe its "revolving clip" could be considered as an automatic loader ??) => Automatic loader I find this interesting, and more if applying modifiers for other equipments. I'll add when I wrote Combat Weight (tons) x10 or Best CE Armor value = armor, I was thinking about old MBT using sttel armor, like T-55/62, AMX-30, Leopard 1,... It would depend on the tank armor type and levels. If we used the heavy armor figure for the ARMOR value in the cpp, sometimes, it could be ridiculously low. For exemple, a T-55 with only 203 points of ARMOR. On the other side, a T-55 weighting 37 tons would have 370 ARMOR points (a bit better than light AFVs), and with localized armor values (203 for Turret, 198 for Hull), these parts would could be put out of commission early before the tank explosion. In the same time, for tanks with higher armor values than the combat weight x10, we should take the best armor value for ARMOR. So we take the best figures.

It seems to be a Safir-86 from the last variant, an Iranian upgraded T-55 fitted with Iranian Improved ERA layout. From JED : SAFIR-74 SAFIR-86 SAFIR-86 [Variant 1] It seems to have new optics for the gunner and from JED is having a 105mm gun, probably chinese (I don't know at all). From global Security, with maybe an error, as the T-72Z is maybe the Shafir-74, without links with true T-72 (but on the pic, it's really a T-72 model) : Iranian T-72 with ERA Iranian Military Forces. MBT Safir-74 with addition of ERA They like FlashFX too Â

Here are links for pics and data : Pakistani Defence Forum > Pakistan's National Security > Military Images & Media Forum : Iran IRAN ARMY INVENTORY 2004

You have crossed the red line ! Is this logo for flying cows ? Is they anywhere writing : Hey buddy, do want you want with it ? We did it for fun Bobmoran belongs to Operation Frenchpoint Mod as his formulaes. Doesn't Mod sound clear ? Moreover these figures are already used by our addons and other things you ignore... so ? Would BAS let you JAM's figures, without asking first ? I don't think so. As usual, you do as you want, without caring about others around you. After all, they mean nothing just deserveing to adore you. It is not a prosecution for thievery... not yet. It is a Hot warning, as you aim to use our figures, and not as you insinuated it If you erase this sentence, it'll be OK. If we find our figures in your further project, It won't. You are warned.

Mister thunderbird84 aka Hileco0307 aka the wolf aka SAS ghurka aka T.Gilani aka Censored by SPQR aka Jupiter Have you ask us, the team OFrP, owner of theses figures, the authorization for using bobmoran's work ?  NO Some steal textures, others p3d, others pieces of config.cpp or scripts. I just hope that you asked authorization to all others addons makers who created the addons you are using, just to inform them, with is the lesser thing to do to be polite  Use whatever you want, but : YOU ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE BOBMORAN'S BALISTIC DATA IS THAT SOUNDING CLEAR ENOUGH ? It includes all my writing in this topic. For TermiPete, it's free of charge

Excellent, Mega Cool. I didn't knew them, now they are one of my favourite links  It's time to dispatch the beef, in order to bury that ol’ hatchet ! I really feel the urge of dancing when earing Adrienne Spiridellis music Here is some more...

Keyword : Imperialism a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries imperialism The Delian League : Also : Ancient History Sourcebook: 11th Brittanica: Delian League I know preaty well this era. What started as a Confederation (First League) against Persian empire and Spartan influence finished with a warlike Athens which lost after a 30 years long bloody war. As I wrote earlier, Not only the USA can be as having an imperialistic policy. France (my country) and UK, in a lesser extent, for exemple have the same. No sided opinion, just a fact.

Hi buddy. So you currently love the american people ? His is a small translation of an old writing of yours under the name "the wolf", about an old video showing the bombing (laser guided bomb in a deserted street, except the group) by a F-16 of a iraqian group in Fallujah, during the first fights [Video: Idiotic Acts of Insurgencies, Iraq (14 Jul 04)] : Theavonlady, Imperialism may be about territorial acquisition, but ilt's also about gaining influence. The Delos Ligua of Athens is a good exemple of imperialism for influence without aiming for territorial acquisition. Taking account in influence gaining upon the world for its own geopolitical interests, the USA isn't the only country involved. France and Great Britain are figting for influence, even after having lost its colonies (which is a good thing, despite all the blood spilled). What sadden me most is when TBA is leaving the political concept of "Axis of Evil" for a new politic action against "outposts of tyranny" naming only 6 countries. Yes Iran is suspecious, as doubtlessly North Korea. Bielorussia, Zimbabwe and others (Birmanie and ? ) are really countries founded on Liberty. But when these outposts are defined as countries whick forbid the free-speech rights, I'm wondering about many others corresponding to this part of the definition of "outpost of tyranny" like : - Democratic Republic of China - Lybia - Tunisia (even if there is a certain freedom, political opposition is strictly forbidden)